[Bug 11006] New: Note in 2.4.1 (Atomic vs List vs Union datatypes)

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11006

           Summary: Note in 2.4.1 (Atomic vs List vs Union datatypes)
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2
        AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com
        ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
                CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com


The Note in question reads:

Note: It is a consequence of constraints normatively specified elsewhere in
this document that the ·item type· of a list may be any ·atomic· datatype, or
any ·union· datatype whose ·transitive membership· consists solely of ·atomic·
datatypes (so a ·list· of a ·union· of ·atomic· datatypes is possible, but not
a ·list· of a ·union· of ·lists·). The ·item type· of a list must not itself be
a list datatype.

I believe that the item type of a list may also be a union datatype whose
transitive membership includes union datatypes. For example it is permissible
to have a list whose item type is ABC, where ABC is defined as union(AB, C) and
AB is defined as union(A,B), where A, B, and C are atomic. In this case the
union type AB is part of the transitive membership of ABC.

Perhaps the note should refer to the "basic membership" of the union type
rather than its "transitive membership". 

(Technically the note is not wrong: it says the item type of a list may be A or
U, without saying that it will always be either A or U. But I suspect it is
intended to be read as saying that the item type will always be either atomic
or a union of atomics).

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 08:35:25 UTC